Total Contributions, Public Financing and Independent Expenditures by Candidate and Ballot Measure

Due to the great difficulty the San Francisco Ethics Commission online database poses for easily seeing total contributions for all current campaigns, our first August article regarding mid-year candidate campaign reporting (Part 1) provided an easy-to-read table of cumulative financing for this election’s candidates (based on the data portrayal method of the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission). Since the date that table was published, the following has occurred: (1) the candidates have reported First Pre-election Period data, (2) newer candidates have provided their first campaign finance reports, (3) Ballot Measure Committees (BMCs) have disclosed their campaign financing, and (4) third party independent spending (so-called “soft money”) has begun to be reported. Those events necessitate a revised count of the campaign financing.

Below, we provide three tables. This first table lists cumulative-to-date contributions and public financing received by all major 2011 candidates, as well supportive and oppositional third party independent spending. A second table breaks down the sources of independent spending. A third table provides total contributions received by all of the 2011 BMCs.

[iii] These amounts do not include spending of less than $1,000 per candidate (cumulative). The amounts include independent expenditures, electioneering communications, and the finances for independent committees formed to support or oppose one or more San Francisco candidates. For the latter committees, the larger of their total reported contributions or total reported expenditures regarding the candidate was included in the table above (unlike general purpose committees, primarily-formed committees can be assumed to spend all of their funds regarding the candidate for which they were formed). In cases where the primarily-formed committee concerned multiple candidates and had higher contributions than expenditures, the amount of contributions was equally divided amongst the candidates.

[v] Trinh’s committee reported being insolvent, with $34,898 in accrued unpaid bills but only $12,755 in remaining cash on hand.

[vi] Ascarrunz’s entire $300,000 contribution amount was reported as loan received from the candidate. If the amount of the loan to the candidate’s committee was truthfully disclosed, it would still illegally exceed the $15,000 limit under San Francisco law regarding candidate loans to their own committees. Under the law, the amount over $15,000 automatically converts to a permanent monetary contribution to the committee and may not be repaid to the candidate. Given the suspect nature of this reported $300,000 transaction, we did not include Ascarrunz’s finance reporting in any of the other sections of analysis in this article.

[vii] $20,000 of Baum’s contributions come directly from the candidate, including $15,000 in loans to the committee.

[viii] Hall’s committee reported being insolvent, with $87,600 in accrued unpaid bills but only $18,808 in remaining cash on hand.

[ix] This new committee, San Franciscans for New Priorities and Dennis Herrera for Mayor 2011, filed its initial Statement of Organization on October 7. The committee has not yet disclosed any fundraising or expenditures.

[x] Though the Progress for All committee never reported its activity as a committee primarily formed to support a particular candidate (Edwin Lee), it is well known as the source of the Run Ed Run campaign and has not disclosed activity concerning any other election contests. Therefore, its finances have been included in the table above as if it were a primarily-formed committee in support of Lee.

[xi] This committee was originally named City Residents Supporting Leland Yee for Mayor 2011, sponsored by American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees – CA People. Since all of its expenditures have concerned opposition to Edwin Lee and it amended its name and status to reflect that purpose, none of the committee’s financing was attributed as support to Leland Yee.

[xii] Methodology note: For BMC’s formed to support two measures, the total amount of contributions received was divided between the measures (the resulting figures appear in the table above). While such division does not necessarily reflect the true priorities of the campaign and though ballot contests such as Measures C versus D might more realistically be considered a single campaign fight rather than two, this methodology was employed for the sake of simplicity and in order to determine total relative financial support for each individual measure position.

[xiii] Excludes independent spending of less than $1,000 per measure (cumulative). Note that the third party disclosure requirements for candidates are enhanced per local law in San Francisco. By contrast, third party spending regarding San Francisco ballot measures is disclosed only as required under state law, resulting in less disclosure of independent spending regarding measures than of independent spending regarding candidates.

[xiv] One California for All originally began as Yee’s committee to support Measure C (Candlestick Park Naming Rights) in the November 2010 election. In September of 2011, the committee amended its status to become in support of Measure A in the current election. The committee has raised $0 in contributions in 2011, has spent less than $3,000 this year, and reported cash on hand of $11,469.

[xv] Standing Up For Working Families, a sponsored committee of SF Fire Fighers Local 798, was originally formed to oppose Measure B in the November 2010 election (Adachi’s original pension measure). In June of 2011, the committee amended its status to become in support of Measure C and opposed to Measure D of the current election. The committee has raised $222,432 in 2011, has spent approximately $447,463 this year (including on paying accrued debts from last year), and reported being insolvent, with $21,037 in accrued unpaid bills but only $10,735 in remaining cash on hand.

[xvi] If the Yes C and No D positions are treated as a single campaign, their total financial support is cumulated to $571,622. Additionally, a committee representing those positions, Standing Up For Working Families, spent over $225,000 more in 2011 than it raised. While some amount of that was for bills from last year’s election, an unknown amount, perhaps even a majority, was for Yes on C and No on D. Thus, the total for those positions may exceed $700,000.

[xvii] SF Fire Fighers Local 798’s Ballot Measure Committee was originally formed to oppose Measure B in the November 2010 election (Adachi’s original pension measure). In September of 2011, the committee amended its status to become in support of Measure C and opposed to Measure D of the current election. While the committee has technically raised $105,000 in 2011, it is listed in the table above as raising $0 because it spent all of its funds on contributions to the other two BMCs which share its goals and reports a $0 cash balance. Specifically, it contributed $30,000 to Standing Up For Working Families and $75,000 to San Franciscans United for Pension & Health Reform, which are incorporated in the totals for those committees in the table above.

[xviii] San Franciscans United for Pension & Health Reform received total contributions of $349,190.

[xix] The Protect Our Benefits committee has been around since at least 1999. In September of 2011, the committee amended its status to become opposed to Measure C of the current election. The committee has raised $39,138 in contributions in 2011, has spent $21,897 this year, and reported cash on hand of $78,043.

[xx] The original name of the Yes Proposition D committee was San Franciscans For Pension Reform Supported by Public Defender Jeff Adachi, George Hume & Michael Moritz.

[xxi] See Endnote #xv regarding Standing Up For Working Families amount.

[xxvii] Students First’s contributions of $33,959 include its fundraising done in 2010.

[xxviii] The Support Quality Neighborhood Schools for All committee of Rees was formed in October of 2011 and has not needed to file a Form 460 disclosure reporting its contributions. However, it disclosed raising $127,000 on a supplemental local formed filed this month. $125,000 of that amount comes from candidate Joanna Rees.